Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court convicted all the Defendants of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding joint principal offenders, the credibility of the confession statement, emotional abuse, mistake of law, party acts and changes in indictment, etc.

The judgment of the court below is against the principle of equality under the Constitution.

Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that there is an incomplete hearing or a mistake of facts against the rules of evidence on the grounds for sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.